alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2785

___________

George W. Carlisle, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Missouri Highways and Transportation *

Commission, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2008

Filed: January 13, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George W. Carlisle, Jr., appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his employment discrimination action. Upon careful de novo review, see

Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we

conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the

district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED  JANUARY 2, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Amounts  inapplicable  or not  disclosed as a seperate  line on the Statement of
Operations are reported as herein.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0001000227
<NAME>                                     TB WOOD'S CORPORATIONS & SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-2-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-2-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                  1.000
<CASH>                                                        2552
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                19698
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   476
<INVENTORY>                                                  26138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             49831
<PP&E>                                                       47882
<DEPRECIATION>                                               23794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               89617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        22552
<BONDS>                                                      25928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        58
<OTHER-SE>                                                   23606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 89617
<SALES>                                                     124027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            126237<F1>
<CGS>                                                        79015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                28061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              14483
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  5794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           8689
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  8689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    1.47
<FN>
Revenues are reported net of credits in the Statement of Operations.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 19 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ralph T. Finkenbrink
______________________________________
Ralph T. Finkenbrink
Chief Financial Officer
June 29, 2004
# C_2022095EN.01004501.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/45

---

Order of the General Court of 20 December 2021 — HS v Commission

(Case T-848/19) (1)

(2022/C 95/63)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Mack, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered January 6, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Linakis, J.), of defendant’s motion to suppress certain identifications and physical evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identifications and physical evidence was properly denied. Based on information received from a witness that he had seen defendant running from the scene of the crime shortly after he and his friends observed defendant pass them on the street, and based on his observation of defendant placing a small purse on the seat of the subway car in which defendant was arrested, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. The witness’ identification was made spontaneously at the scene of the arrest and was not the product of a police-arranged identification procedure. Therefore, the identification was properly not suppressed. Furthermore, based on this evidence and the evidence that the complainant’s property was found on defendant upon his arrest, defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620).

Defendant’s claim that black jurors were systematically excluded from the jury is belied by the fact that at least two blacks actually served on the jury. The trial court did not err in excluding the testimony of a defense character witness regarding defendant’s reputation for honesty after defendant was arrested *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 151 [Prince 10th ed]; 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1618 [a], at 595 [Chadbourn rev 1974]). While the trial court’s charge on recent exclusive possession of stolen property was defective because it repeatedly referred to a "presumption” of guilt flowing therefrom, since the jury was informed that they did not have to infer theft from possession and that the inference was rebuttable, the use of the term "presumption” did not mislead the jury so as to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Mitchell,*108 AD2d 759; *Insero v Henderson,*554 F Supp 824, *affd*742 F2d 1439).

*594As far as the exclusion of the statement of witness Clifford Avery is concerned, in the absence of the statement or evidence of what it contained, we see no basis for reversal.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Scott Sullinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.



Date: September 9, 2005



By:

/s/ Scott SullingerName:

Scott SullingerTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

AMENDMENT TO
  PROCESSING AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT TO PROCESSING AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of October, 2003, between Akorn, Inc., a
Louisiana Corporation ("Akorn") and NeoPharm, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("NeoPharm"). 


        WHEREAS, NeoPharm and Akorn have entered into that certain Processing Agreement, dated December 20, 2001 (the "Processing
Agreement"); and 


        WHEREAS, Neopharm and Akorn desire to amend the Processing Agreement. 



        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 


        1.    Amendment.    Section 5.1 of the Processing Agreement shall be amended as follows:

the words "June 30, 2003" shall be stricken and replaced with the words "October 1, 2004"


        2.    No Other Amendments.    All other terms shall be as provided in the Processing Agreement. 


*    *    *    *    *    *    *    * 


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed as of the day and year first written above. 



	AKORN, INC.	 	NEOPHARM, INC.
	

By:	
 	

	
 	

By:	
 	


	

Its:	
 	

	
 	

Its: President and CEO











QuickLinks


AMENDMENT TO PROCESSING AGREEMENT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                       228
<INVENTORY>                                      3,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,438
<PP&E>                                          20,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,336
<SALES>                                         42,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,712
<CGS>                                           18,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (26)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,152
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,152
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09


</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 921 

To allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E–2 nonimmigrant 

visas if similarly situated United States nationals are eligible for similar 

nonimmigrant status in Israel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2011 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. KYL, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E– 

2 nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated United States 

nationals are eligible for similar nonimmigrant status 

in Israel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS 

4 FROM ISRAEL. 

5 Israel shall be deemed to be a foreign state described 

6 in section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nation7 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)) for purposes of 

8 clauses (i) and (ii) of such section if the Government of 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 921 IS

1 Israel provides similar nonimmigrant status to nationals 

2 of the United States. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### In re Derek Marquis FLEMING, Petitioner.

No. 10-2304.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 4, 2011.

Derek Marquis Fleming, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek Marquis Fleming petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on a motion for reconsideration filed in his criminal case. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has denied Fleming’s motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Fleming’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny as moot Fleming’s motions to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1242. JONAH ADDIS v. DEAUNA MCQUEEN.

Jonah Addis has filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s final judgment

and decree granting Deauna McQueen’s petition for divorce and awarding McQueen

sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child. Addis also seeks to appeal

a parenting plan entered in conjunction with the divorce decree, as well as an order

holding Addisin contempt for failure to comply with prior court ordersrequiring him

to pay temporary child support and certain attorney fees. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), direct appeals may be had from “[a]ll

judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or

modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such

child custody judgment or orders.” “Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce,

alimony, and other domestic relations cases,” however, must be initiated by filing an

application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). Thus, direct appeals

will not lie from “orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in divorce

cases.” Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (punctuation

omitted); accord Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014)

(“Where, as here, child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the

determination of child custody does not transformthe case into a <child custody case,’

as that phrase is used in OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), for purposes of determining the

appropriate method for appealing a child custody order.”).

“Because this is not a child custody case, but is a divorce case in which child custody

is an issue, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) requires an application for discretionary

April 22, 2022
appeal, and a direct appeal is not authorized by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).” Todd v.

Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 252 (1) (703 SE2d 597) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga.

App. 233, 234 (818 SE2d 690) (2018). See also Booker v. Ga. Dept. of Human

Resources, 317 Ga. App. 426, 427 (731 SE2d 110) (2012) (an action in which the

“underlying subject matter is a father’s obligation to provide child support” is “a

domestic relations case subject to review only by application”). “Compliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v.

State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted).

Accordingly, Addis’s failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Ford, 347

Ga. App. at 234.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/22/2022
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE UNKNOWN BENEFICIARIES OF THE MARIMINA LAND TRUST

and THE UNKNOWN TRUSTEE OF THE MARIMINA LAND TRUST,

Appellants,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as trustee on behalf 

of THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE HIS ASSET 

SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-HE2,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2793

[January 27, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016-CA-010832.

Owei Z. Belleh of The Belleh Law Group, PLLC, Plantation, for 

appellants.

Allison Morat of Bitman O’Brien & Morat, PLLC, Lake Mary, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15499]



[[Page 38530]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Proposed Collection; Requesting Comments on Form 8995 and Form 
8995-A; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service published a document in the 
Federal Register of June 1, 2021, concerning request for comments on 
Form 8995 and Form 8995-A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at 
Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe949190d08cd09d9f92929f969f90be978c8dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be1e4e5a5f9a5e8eae7e7eae3eae5cbe2f9f8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-11445, on 
page 29360, in the second column, correct the ``Estimated Time per 
Respondent'' and ``Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours'' captions to 
read:
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 8 hours, 7 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 336,107,360.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Jon R. Callahan,
Tax Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2021-15499 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2023045EN.01003603.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/36

---

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Experian Finance 2012 v Commission

(Case T-771/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/59)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 994 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 994

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 
effect laws or orders with respect to pay-to-play reform, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2011

 Mr. Kirk (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Durbin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 
effect laws or orders with respect to pay-to-play reform, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Ethics Law Protection Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PAY-TO-PLAY REFORM.

    Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Pay-to-Play Reform.--A State transportation department shall 
not be considered to have violated a requirement of this section solely 
because the State in which that State transportation department is 
located, or a local government within that State, has in effect a law 
or an order that limits the amount of money an individual or entity 
that is doing business with a State or local agency with respect to a 
Federal-aid highway project may contribute to a political party, 
campaign, candidate, or elected official.''.
                                 <all>
```